Judge Ponders Sending Dissident to Prison for Not Shutting Down His Website

Judge Ponders Sending Dissident to Prison for Not Shutting Down His Website

VANCOUVER. October 10, 2012. A controversial website http://nspcanada.nfshost.com. may soon disappear and many postings by a Regina university lecturer may be removed from STORMFRONT, if Canada’s thought control advocates get their way.

A federal judge was asked to jail Internet dissident and webmaster Terry Tremaine for months or until he breaks and removes a controversial website. After a tense morning of demands for the jailing of a man who has posted politically incorrect opinions on the Internet and equally strong submissions by his lawyer Douglas Christie decrying censorship and bullying by the state, Judge Sean Harrington adjourned court and reserved judgement in Mr. Tremaine’s contempt of court hearing here.

Representing the Canadian Human Rights Commission Daniel Poulin urged an 85 day term of incarceration for Mr. Tremaine or until “the original material found to be offensive” under Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (now repealed by the House of Commons) is removed. He argued that leaving the postings complained of was violating a Human Rights Tribunal’s order to “cease and desist.” In a further demand that had Internet savvy listeners shaking their heads, he insisted that Mr. Tremaine must remove his signature block from his more than 3,000 posting on Stormfront, where he posted under the name “mathdoktor99” because it provides the web address of his website. He then seemed to go further and said: “The only way to ensure the material is not repeated is to remove the website,” even though it was acknowledged there were several thousands of postings and audio and musical items, only a few of which formed the basis of the 2005 complaint by Richard Warman.

Mr. Poulin charged that Mr. Tremaine “knew he was ignoring the cease and desist order and he did so purposefully.” So, in Mr. Poulin’s submission, Mr. Tremaine is to be ordered to take down his website and write to STORMFRONT to remove material deemed offensive in the Tribunal’s order.

How, the judge asked, is Mr. Tremaine to “purge his contempt and remove material from the Internet” if he is in jail?

“He can have his lawyer do it or hire a consultant,” Mr. Poulin shot back.

Further, “if he fails to remove the website after 85 days, he must transfer the website to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. We’ll remove it and make it a blank page.” And then the final kick at Mr. Tremaine, who was rendered penniless after Richard Warman complained to the University of Saskatchewan long before the initial complaint was adjudicated and cost Mr. Tremaine his job. “While we recognize Mr. Tremaine’s ability to pay is limited, we seek costs.”

Richard Warman who has hounded Mr. Tremaine with the original human rights complaint, a complaint to his employer, a criminal code Sec. 319 “hate law” complaint, and at least three contempt of court complaints rose to make his sentencing submissions.

Warman demanded a jail term of three to six months, even if Mr. Tremaine removes the website. “Deterrence and denunciation are important, given the five year extensive period of contempt. I’d be concerned if he was let out as soon as he purged his contempt,” Mr. Warman continued.

Then, warming to his subject, he harrumphed: “There is the self-evident seriousness of Mr. Tremaine’s trying to alienate control of his site. It boggles the mind to think of anything so contemptuous of the court.” He referred to the startling revelation in court the previous day that Mr. Tremaine was arranging to sell his website to someone in the U.S., which is not bound by Canada’s police state censorship laws. The judge issued an order preventing him from communicating the password to anyone else.

However, Judge Harrington interjected, “there is no law preventing him from selling his website.”

Warman also wanted the order to direct Terry Tremaine to write to archive.org to ask that their copy of his site be removed.

Mr. Warman, too, said he was seeking costs, even though much of his trip to Vancouver would have been paid for by the Commission which called him as a witness. “You’re here as a complainant who is also a solicitor,” the judge noted.

“I have a day job and have foregone that revenue and I practise also as a solicitor and have foregone that income. [Mr. Tremaine’s] inability to pay is not a reason for not awarding costs.

Mr. Warman, too, didn’t want the large number of innocuous postings on Terry Tremaine’s website to remain: “You’ll recognize the dangers of sifting the wheat from the chaff on the nspc website. It is much better to close it entirely. If we don’t, we’ll be back here again soon and this matter will never end.

Acting for Terry Tremaine Douglas Christie, who is also general counsel for the Canadian Free Speech League, pointed out that, since Marc Lemire won his tribunal case and got Sec. 13 declared effectively unconstitutional, until a federal judge upheld the law, but stripped of penalties, that the sky had not fallen. There were no serious adverse consequences. That judge’s decision may well be appealed. The Senate may soon pass the repeal of Sec. 13 and the Supreme Court decision on Whatcott is eagerly awaited. This case challenged the power of human rights commissions to restrict free expression. He urged the judge to delay sentencing until these decisions are in. “Parliament has already determined that this material is not illegal,” he said.

He reflected on the bizarre ruling of the Federal Court of Appeal: “Now you are liable for contempt of an order even before you are informed of the order.”

“Mr. Tremaine’s right to free speech is important. His freedom to speak is your freedom and mine as well.”

In a comment that would draw a sharp rebuke from Richard Warman and a threat to complain to the Law Society of British Columbia, Mr. Christie said: “Mr. Warman has made a career out of shooting cripples,” as a figure of speech. His victims are “people who are marginal.” Some, like Terry Tremaine, end up in mental hospitals. “Mr. Warman now wants costs assessed against a man who cannot even hold a janitor’s job. At the behest of Mr. Warman, he was prosecuted under the Criminal Code.” And all this, said Mr. Christie, “to eliminate a political ideology Mr. Warman does not agree with.”

“Tolerance,” Mr. Christie reminded the court, “is best as a virtue when it is practised rather than preached.”

“Is there an order for Mr. Tremaine not to sell his website to some American who wants it? What my friends really need is to abolish the 1st Amendment. My friends hunt down ideas they do not like. They want to add ‘remove’ if the order’s ‘cease and desist’ doesn’t mean that.”

He pointed out that a recent Supreme Court decision authored by Madam Justice Rosalie Abella held that a link is not libel.” Mr. Tremaine’s signature block on STORMFRONT.org is just a link and should not be ordered removed.

“My friends want the nspc website shut down so that Mr. Tremaine cannot be known. The objective is to eliminate thoughts.”

Mr. Warman, he argued, “didn’t have to be here. He’s a witness, counsel and plaintiff. He’s a voluntary participant. Now he wants costs which will haunt Terry Tremaine for life. He should not be entitled to costs.”

“There’s nothing illegal or immoral if the website is sold to an American. We don’t yet police the world. Unlike Canada, free speech really means something in the U.S.” He cited the case of a recent anti-Moslem video which sparked violence, riots and murder in the Middle East. Yet, no serious politician in the U.S. suggested banning it.

“Is it contempt of court to render yourself non-compliant” by trying to sell the website?” he asked.

“Mr. Warman’s proposal to put Terry Tremaine’s ideas down the memory hole is like most totalitarian states in the world.”

The clumsily worded human rights tribunal order enjoined Mr. Tremaine from “telephonic” communication. He did not engage in “telephonic” communication in the period in question: February – December, 2007, Mr. Christie said. “It is legitimate to communicate what is not specifically prohibited,” he added.

Mr. Christie denounced Mr. Warman’s “draconian, systematic totalitarian treatment of Terry Tremaine. He deprived him of his job, drove him into a mental hospital, refused an apology (which would have ended the human rights complaint in 2006) and kept him in litigation for years. Mr. Warman is a one-man anti-Nazi brigade.”

Urging a delay in handing down a judgement, Mr. Christie said: “Sec. 13 is on its way out. It won’t be around in a year. Terry Tremaine is not a bad man, He may have some bad ideas but he also has some good ideas that may benefit humanity.”

Concluding, Mr. Christie said: “Many people have suffered from these Warman complaints. Terry Tremaine has suffered well and truly enough since 2005. There is no need to make him suffer further.”

Judge Harrington reserved judgement.

NEWMARKET, July 13, 2012. It was certainly a “Black Friday” for freedom of dissent in Canada today. One observer wondered whether this was Pnom Penh or Newmarket,. Late this afternoon in an almost deserted courthouse, after a gruelling seven hours of delays, Judge Kelly Wright sentenced letter writer Brad Love to 18 months in prison. Furthermore, “Mr. Love is to refrain from any political speech or commentary to any media outlet, political, cultural or religious group or organization, or police organization, except with the express written permission of a political or religious organization” that welcomes him as a member or associate and with the permission of his probation officer.

The 52-year old critic of Zionism and massive Third World immigration is, thus, effectively silenced — no letters-to-the-editor, no letters to newspapers or provocative tweaks to police chiefs or politicians.In addition, Mr. Love was also enjoined from any communication, direct or indirect, with the Canadian Jewish Congress, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith, Hillel, and Robert Tiffin, the Vice-President of the York University Jewish Students Union. Mr. Love was found guilty of sending information packages to these four, having called them to receive permission.

In 2006, now retired Mr. Justice Hogg imposed three years of probation during which Mr. Love was forbidden to write to anybody, without their prior consent. In May, Judge Wright ruled that the Jewish groups in question had not given “informed” consent when they told Mr. Love, who had not identified himself in phone calls, that he could send them his written material.

In sentencing Mr. Love, Judge Wright tore a strip off this dissident who, over the past 20 years, has penned more than 10,000 letters to newspapers and public officials. The judge agreed with Crown Vogel’s submission that Mr. Love was so dedicated to his views that he cannot be rehabilitated. Previous “court orders,” Judge Wright read in a staccato voice, “have had no effect in curbing Mr. Love’s propensity to share his hateful and hurtful opinions.” His actions, she added, “were deliberate and intentional” in sending material “that was hateful and hurtful of the Jewish community and reflected his deep-seated racist beliefs.”

The Crown, in her arguments, made it clear that the political gagging of Mr. Love was her goal: “Mr. Love, in the Crown’s submission, in a unique offender.” She indicated that her goal was “to prevent” Mr. Love’s “views from hurting other people. We need to protect the public from hateful, scurrilous material.” And, so, he must be silenced.

Patrick Leckie, Mr. Love’s lawyer, argued that the material sent to the Jewish groups was essentially private communication and there had been no victim impact statement or proof of any harm done. He also noted that the Crown had not charged Mr. Love with “hate” for those mailings. He also pointed out, as the Crown had admitted, that there was little case law to guide the judge in sentencing.

Just before the judge sent the letter]-writing dissident off for another 18 months in prison — his original sentence when convicted in 2003 under Canada’s notorious “hate law” Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code — Mr. Love briefly addressed the court. He pointed to the seats in the courtroom, empty except for Mr. Love’s brother and two members of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, which has backed the outspoken dissident, and a young policeman waiting to slap the handcuffs on him. “Where are the people who claimed to have been hurt or offended by my letters?” he demanded. “They’ve never shown up in the three years of this trial.”

He also warned that his sentence “would have ramifications in limiting the freedoms of other people who come after me.”

The judge adopted almost to a word the Crown’s sentencing requests and, as she had all through the trial which had stretched over three years, rejected all of the defence’s submissions.

Mr. Love will be seeking bail and release pending an appeal of both the verdict and ferocious sentence and an appeal of a rejected constitutional challenge to Judge Hogg’s original “over broad” order, Mr. Love’s lawyer Patrick Leckie said outside the court. “There’s no way Superior Court will endorse the terms of Judge Hogg’s order,” or this order, he added.

The day’s proceedings were a measure of Ontario’s sclerotic court system. The sentencing had been set down in a dedicated courtroom for 10:00 a.m. However, various remands and other matters delayed the Love matter until 12:30. By 1:00, it was time for lunch. Back at 2:15. A further recess had to be called to locate documents the Crown should have had for the file. At 4:10 the judge announced she’d need 20 minutes to consider her verdict. Court resumed at 4:48 and Mr. Love soon after 5:00 p.m was carted off to the cells and political silence, just like his dissidents in Communist China.

Columnist Andrew Coyne Calls for End to “Hate Law”

Columnist Andrew Coyne Calls for End to “Hate Law”

For the third time in a week a major newspaper or columnist has called for the end of Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code, Canada’s notorious “hate law,” Now, that Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act has been repealed by the House of Commons and is all but certain to pass the Senate, the remaining legal throttle on free speech on the Internet is the “hate law.” Today, the following excellent article by columnist Andrew Coyne appeared front page int he National Post (July 10, 2012) and the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, among other outlets.

Last week, in reaction to publicity CAFE had put out about the Terry Tremaine Sec. 319 case, moving its way at a glacial pace through the courts in Regina, the National Post picked up the story. On July 4, columnist Marni Soupcoff wrote a column entitled “Tremaine’s platform for neo-Nazi views helpfully provided by Canada’s criminal code.” While gratuitously slagging Mr. Tremaine, Soupcoff said: “The real problem lies with section 319(2) of the Criminal Code, which makes “willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group” by “communicating statements, other than in private conversation” an offense punishable by prison time. The Supreme Court ruled in 1990 in the Keegstra case that the provision is constitutional. But the Tremaine case is reminding us that constitutionality doesn’t make a law sensible or desirable…..
The trouble starts once the government enters the equation, at the invitation of section 319(2), and sets itself up as the arbiter of whether Tremaine’s ideas are simply too offensive and disagreeable to legally abide. Suddenly, then, to counter this hefty power to subjectively vet a citizen’s speech and decide whether it should land him behind bars for a several years, the government forces itself into the position of having to provide Tremaine a far prettier platform than he’d ever have been able to achieve on his own.”

The next day, the National Post weighed in with an editorial questioning Sec. 319: “. However, he will now be treated to a media-publicized trial in a Canadian courtroom, in which he will be able to air his nasty views for the benefit of mainstream journalists.”

We can only hope that calls will continue and grow for Canada to be rid of this minority-inspired piece of censorship that would be more fitting in Red China or despotisms like Burma (or Myanmar, or whatever it’s calling itself this week.)

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Continue reading

Terry Tremaine’s “Hate” Case Attracting Media Attention & Criticism of Sec. 319 (“hate law”)

Terry Tremaine’s “Hate” Case Attracting Media Attention & Criticism of Sec. 319 (“hate law”)
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
P.O. Box 332,
Rexdale, ON.,
M9W 5L3
416-428-5308
The Editor,
THE NATIONAL POST.
Dear Sir:
Re: “Handing hatred a microphone,” (National Post, July 5, 2012), if this were any other than a highly charged political case, your headline and conclusion (“hatemongers such as Mr.Tremaine”) would have contained the mandatory “alleged” hatred. The Terry Tremaine trial on charges of “willful promotion of hate” hasn’t even started yet. Presumably, that’s what the trial will determine: whether or not Mr. Tremaine’s political opinions expressed on the Internet on several U.S. websites constitute “hate.”
I agree with your condemnation of Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code, Canada’s notorious “hate law.” You ask: “How many Canadians had heard of Mr. Tremaine before the charges against him were laid. … We hadn’t.” Your ignorance is a scandal.
The Canadian Association for Free Expression has sent regular report on Terry Tremaine’s travails over the past six years, including to your paper and many other media outlets in Canada..
Mr. Tremaine has been the victim of a political vendetta by Ottawa civil servant Richard Warman. In 2005, Mr. Warman launched a human rights complain against him under the now repealed Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Before any tribunal had been convened., Mr. Warman approached Mr. Tremaine’s employer, the University of Saskatchewan with a complaint. Mr. Tremaine lost his job as a lecturer and was unable to afford a lawyer for the human rights Tribunal. Next, Mr. Warman launched a complaint with the Regina Police under Sec. 319 of the Criminal Cod – the case at hand.
For the past four years, Mr. Tremaine’s bail conditions have prevented him from posting his views on any “White supremacist” website. Too bad his name isn’t Wei Wei. This Chinese dissident was jailed and then stripped of his political rights for a year and was not allowed to talk to the Western media during that time. Many Canadian papers came to his defence and protested Red China’s denial of freedom of speech. Rightly so.
However, the always self righteous Canadian media is often silent with abuses closer to home. Mr. Tremaine has been gagged four times as long as Mr. Wei Wei, with no end in sight..
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Continue reading